Solar-Terrestrial Power Update

Tony McGough (December 26, 2011 at 5:20 am)
“WUWT is for popular consumption. Please explain in easy words.”
I can suggest watching the wind animations to which I linked if you don’t know what the SAO (semi-annual oscillation) is. It’s pretty simple.
The calculations, on the other hand, are well beyond most (possibly not all) of the audience here, which is precisely why I volunteer the graphs to the community.
The WUWT community is vulnerable to abstract conception without access to the benefits of data-based conception. I brought a microscope, set the magnification to 6 months & the focal length to 11 years, and let people look. No computer model output. They’re real data, under a specific magnification at a specific focal length.
Whether you trust your eyes is up to you. Everyone is free to believe in the mainstream narrative of solar-terrestrial relations, which is fundamentally incompatible with observation. I guarantee that the narrative will change if enlightenment prevails in our society & civilization.
Regards.

Paul,
you would be surprised what people can understand when an article has an introduction, a body with associated graphs that are discussed in the body and a conclusion that outlines the significance of the information presented. If you just throw graphs on the table then everyone starts guessing why you put them there and what they could really signify. See Bob Tisdale articles for a comparison to this article in terms of structure.

Pamela Gray (December 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)
“All this can of course be modulated by intrinsic drivers.”
That’s exactly what I said on p.9. The point is it’s much simpler demonstrating modulations at the frequencies of known stationary dominant temporal modes (e.g. year, semi-annual, QBO) — i.e. start with the easy stuff, catalog it, and patiently explore how the orbital modulations of solar excitation integrate across dominant temporal modes.

Mornin’ Paul,
All fields of inquiry have their specialized technical jargon, including my own (education). How does an intelligent layman react when confronted with unfamiliar language? Well, California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus was certainly intelligent, but he once remarked in a written decision that many experiences, too sad to relate in detail, had convinced him that large parts of the Education Code “were not meant to be understood.”
Cal State professor Herbert Landar had a different perspective. Commenting on his collateral reading list and making the point that the titles on the list were there because they were important, not because he agreed with them, he gave us the following advice: “If you can’t make sense out of what you’re reading and it seems like so much nonsense, I beg of you, consider the possibility that it may be so much nonsense.”
(Quote from memory is approximate. But hopefully clear.)
Having a clear day in Sierra Vista. : > )

Let me state clearly, regardless of the value or my understanding thereof, WUWT is the place for posting.

Leif has something I’ve experienced with a dear friend, who is a retired Chemical Engineering professor. I call it “professorial arrogance”. It results in proclimations of great “gravity”, centered on things COMPLETELY IN HIS REALM, but the pronounced inability to be flexible to changes and new ideas. 20 years ago, in some PAINFULLY long sessions I introduced said indivual to using MathCAD for technical write ups. He’s now in his ’80’s, and avidly uses MathCAD. But the transition from “Fortran” , calculators and engineering graph paper to the PC/MathCAD realm, was…to put it mildly, painful. I persisted, however, broke through the “professorial arrogance” and the result was a retired professor who published a third again as much in RETIREMENT as while
active.
So be kind to Leif. Give him some time to think things out. In a year he may consider this his “own idea”, and then it will garner great support.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am) wrote:
“2) The semiannual variation is due to internal atmospheric dynamics “
Yes, plainly evident in the animations to which I linked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-843523

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:40 am) wrote:
“compare with Gross’s graphs [Figures 3 and 4] in http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf “
He’s looking at different features of the time series Leif. I have those & tons of other summaries on file. The time series has TONS of interesting features.
You (or anyone else) should be able to isolate any of the features he illustrates, any of the features I illustrate, or any of the features anyone else illustrates. Patient diligence with the geometry is in order.
For anyone reading here who is just starting out with LOD, I volunteered this to expedite introduction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/ .
Regards.

Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:38 am)
“No aliasing at all. Your curve shows very heavily smoothing, so daily values are not needed. Show the values without smoothing.”
You don’t appear to be making an effort to interpret correctly. Or somehow along the way maybe you’ve missed some fundamentals.
It’s not a responsibility I enjoy, but the community needs to be aware that (so far) your comprehension is absent on this file. You’ll need to reproduce this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . It’s the way you’ll learn whatever it is you’re missing (which is difficult to diagnose given the info I have so far).